I agree, but here’s the thing. First, Walker needs to do well in Iowa and Iowa is economically tied to the ethanol boondoggle.
The problem with some boondoggles is they’re not one-off’s, they become long-term and people build mini-economies around them. When faced with a situation like that some will just say cut the cord and let the chips fall where they may.
But others will look at the upheaval that will be caused by cutting the cord immediately and will instead suggest a phased withdrawal so that people have time to plan for it and aren’t left holding the bag. Granted, those affected will also lobby hard for a reversal of the decision, which is why there are so many “cut the cord” types.
My understanding is that Walker said they would have to be removed eventually. He’s pandering, yes, but pandering is an essential tool in a politician’s toolbox. I don’t like it being used, but I’ll admit that Walker is quite skilled at using it. (Obama, of course, was the best ever at pandering; everyone listening to one his campaign speeches thought he was coming down on their side, regardless what side that might be. That was pandering without equal.)
In this case, those Iowans dependent on ethanol heard that their livelihoods wouldn’t be suddenly cut out from under them, while others heard that the ethanol subsidy had to go, eventually. My guess is that, under a President Walker, it wouldn’t last his first full term of office, and I could live with that.
It looks to me like he’s doing pretty much with ethanol subsidies what Lincoln did with slavery. Lincoln kept dancing around proposing half solutions and did not have the Emancipation Proclamation cover slave states that were still in the union, kept his opposition constantly off balance, and eventually destroyed slavery.
“My guess is that, under a President Walker, it wouldn’t last his first full term of office, and I could live with that.”
Isn’t pandering a form of lying? I suppose all you CAN do is guess about what he really will do and what he really believes after he is elected.
I don’t know about everyone else but I have had enough of lying, pandering, flip flopping and having to guess and be surprised after the fact. It makes me lose trust in the candidate to see this happening especially when it is on more than one policy. Also, it makes me think that the candidate thinks that I am stupid and easy to fool. Does the candidate believe that the voters are so easily misled? What does that tell you about what he thinks of us?
If Walker is supposed to be fearless, able to stand up to and take on the left, then let him stand up, say what he really believes and let the chips fall where they may. Let us choose our candidate without being manipulated.
I have always had great respect for Scott Walker. It may be that he is being given bad advice and guidance. However it doesn’t reflect well on him.
Those of us who know him in WI have seen what he has done and know that he has kept most of his promises to us. However the rest of the country this is not the case. Many voters are seeing him for the first time and forming opinions. I now even am asking myself “Who IS Scott Walker and can I trust him?”